Posted on 02/24/2015 12:35:36 PM PST by Graybeard58
Violation of the 14th Amendment?
Rhett? I HATE autocorrect!
So if you sell a note to someone they have no right to collect?
Really. Because why - because you made a statement? How's the weather up there, Zeus?
Down here we back our statements by arguments. Like, if I pretend your statement actually has some sort of actual argument behind it, I would ask why you left out the important part. You know, the little fact that the "filial medical debt" was being pursued by a debt collector - who bought it from the actual creditor. Maybe you left that part out because it erases your statement? Must be. After all, it can't erase your argument, because you don't have one.
Laws in states with filial responsibility laws obviate any consideration of “who holds the debt” issues.
Correct but you need to take it one step further. When a third party debt collector sends you a notice...ALWAYS respond in writing via certified mail that you deny the debt and demand to see the original debt instrument with your signature! Do not let the third party debt collector's demand letters go without a response. Several demand letters without a response can be construed as acceptance or acknowledgment of the debt.
If you sell a note to someone, you are using the debt as the thing you are offering for sale. Once you sell the note, you've terminated the debt. After all, can you then go collect on the debt? Nope. So you, as creditor, are out of it. You have received payment for it - for your right to collect on an actual, verifiable, debt.
Selling a debt is confused with transferring a debt. If you are a creditor and you sell your business, or die and transfer your assets to your heirs, you haven't sold your debt. Those new entities actually own the original debt instrument, and collect on it, because they have assumed the status of the creditor.
If you sell a debt, however, you are abandoning your efforts to collect it from your debtor. THEN you are actually using the debt instrument as an item of sale that literally destroys your claim to its original agreement. That's what you are actually getting paid for - to destroy the debt. Thus, you are terminating your contract with your debtor.
What the buyer, the debt collector, is purchasing, is protected status under debt collection laws that protect them from fraud and extortion charges if they follow debt collection rules, as well as some rights to attempt to collect money based on that terminated debt instrument.
But they are not, in any way, buying the debt itself. Because the creditor agreed to settle that debt by literally selling their right to collect on it. And when they did that, the debt no longer existed.
It's confusing, because if the creditor did not sell the debt, but instead sued the debtor, they would follow the same claim in court that the debt collector does. The problem is that the law allows the court to let the debt collector act as if they are the creditor if they "buy" a debt, and only requires the debt collector to prove their creditor status if challenged by the person they are suing.
You can do the same thing. You can sue a perfect stranger, and unless they refuted you and demanded to see where they agreed to pay you anything, you could produce any fraud to support your suit - who would know? But in the case of debt collectors, they are institutionally protected by the simple fact that people don't know the law. And that is what they are really buying when they buy debts - the appearance of legitimacy, and the guarantee of limited liability under the law.
Note - this doesn't mean people don't have to pay their debts. Actual creditors CAN go after debtors, and NONE of this applies. This is just about debts that have been "sold" to debt collectors.
I sold a piece of property and held a note on it. I got letters in the mail from people wanting to buy that note. It is not in any way in arrears. So your saying that these people that buy these notes have no legal claim to collect? I may see what they are offering. The guy I sold it to is a good guy. Heck That would be sweet if I could get my money and relieve him of debt at the same time.
You wouldn't get your money. Debt collectors pay pennies on the dollar. If you want to help your friend, just reduce his debt by settling for pennies on the dollar directly with him.
Yeah? And how exactly do they square that with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which goes into considerable detail proclaiming the legitimacy of "who hold the debt" issues?
To a limited and dangerous extent, yes, and this can be used to initiate administrative actions. The problem is that the initiator, the debt collector, knows that their claim is fraudulent in fact. It's one thing to have limited liability to attempt to collect - its another thing to defraud the court by claiming actual creditor status that you know you don't have. Because even if you win a judgement, your victim can later file against you and have that judgement vacated, and criminal charges pressed, for that very same fraud against the court.
No, there is always the Promissory Note where you promised to repay the amount. The original can sell that note to anyone. The promise still exists.
Accounting 101.
The idea that someone’s wages were garnished “because they didn’t say not to do it” is pretty funny.
They go after the estate AND any money transferred before death in an attempt to avoid paying the debt. But that is all.
BTDT
When my mother died, my sister called the credit card company and negotiated the debt from $20k to $6k. They thought there was no estate.
Thanks for the info. Given the way articles often are tailored to boost outrage, it seemed possible that missing facts would make this seem less unjust. I hope the parents can get some relief very soon.
When an adult dies owing ....shouldn't that be considered a bankruptcy?
A very, very and permanent bankruptcy.
Certainly true. But the average person does not have the knowledge or even the financial resources for a court fight. It most case an attorney may cost as much or more than the total amount debt, interest and fees the debt collector is claiming.
The break point used to be around $2000 to $2500 before a debt collector will make the effort to file a claim in court. However, if the collection company files in court and the affected person does nothing it will result in a judgement in favor of the plaintiff debt collector. It is better to take immediate action and try to nip it in the bud. Even if the debt collector takes it to court you will have already built a paper trail of putting them on notice to support your case.
Yes, absolutely.
Promises and wages and garnishing and accounting and notes.
No mention of law, though, like the federal requirement of debt validation when challenged. Or why that's even necessary, or why someone who bought a "note" might not be able to validate a debt they "bought." Or the many legal differences between wage garnishment and debt collection.
What's funny is that you have such arrogant opinions without understanding the difference between these issues. Maybe you shouldn't have stopped your education at Accounting 101 - if you'd taken some more classes, you wouldn't be so overly impressed with that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.